Not sure where I 1st heard about this, but I have Jones to thank for reminding myself and others of it in a persistent fashion. (Alas, he's nuts as far as global warming and socialism, so I can't recommend him to others or listen very long myself (what a nutty following he has, that can stand him 4 hours a day..)) but I'd like to bring your attention to credible, scholarly discussions which deserve to be as widely broadcast as the MSM, or even as widely as Alex Jones..
(it should be noted, btw, how nauseating the MSM has been this whole week, essentially cementing the notion that there's an active cover-up by systematically avoiding what grieving relatives and 1st responders now dying of dust inhalation surely must seek most: honest and open investigation of What Happened, and Who Done It..)
Huge kudos to the Pacifica Network for today's all-day town-hall style, network-wide programming. (If you don't know what Pacifica is, it's listener-SPONSORED radio (no ads whatever, not even ads masquerading as "underwriting"! Donate!).. and it's high time you got turned on..) recommended: the 4pm and 5pm (Pacific time) hours..
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/date/2011/09/11
This AirAmerica-refugee radio host has been doing a consistently stupendous podcast-- recent weeks featuring groundbreaking Sept 11 guests. Guest host for many segments = SIBEL EDMONDS!
http://peterbcollins.com/
see also www.wfmu.org/daveemory (program #684) .. projectcensored.org, globalresearch.ca, ae911truth.org, http://scholarsfor911truth.org/ etc ETC! almost forgot.. getting to the point, here: www.WTC7.net
as for print media, it was eye-opening to see a rather MSM mag run these super important articles.. really should've gotten more talked about by others, IMO:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/08/9-11-2011-201108
The Kingdom and the Towers
Did America’s supposed ally Saudi Arabia secretly support the 9/11 hijackers? In an adaptation from their new book, Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan investigate.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/09/preventing-9-11-201109
9/11: The Tapping Point
U.S. intelligence could have been monitoring every al-Qaeda or Taliban call and e-mail, starting in 1999. David Rose reveals how the government bungled its best chance to prevent 9/11.

Since we all know that conspiracies don't exist, I would like to propose what I believe is the most likely explanation for this little glitch. This was simply a common time warp, of the kind we have all seen so often in the movies. BBC skipped into the future for a short while, reported news that hadn't happened yet, and then returned to the present. No big deal. Happens all the time. Remember Occam's Razor - what is more likely? That a group of people conspired to commit a crime in secret (patently absurd), or a simple time warp? The answer is obvious.

This video is the different vintage from the europe. The UK television of bbc is the great channel. and this days broadcasting is good.

I think you need to check fema's website and check their official report with regards to the time WTC 7 collasped. They are on record as stating that the collaspe of WTC 7 occurred at 5:20pm(10:20pm BST)!!This is accordance with the reported live coverage of the BBC's 10:00pm coverage and that "controversal background shot of the "said" building still standing!!It has been proven,inadvertantly by fema's report(sadly for them).Regardless what it was in the backround of Jane Stanely's reporting, the still BBC reported the collaspe 20 minutes BEFORE it actually happened-I know-I was watching the broadcast at 10:00pm BST;so unless someone turned all our clocks here in the UK back 20 mins(INCLUDING MY MANUAL WATCH)then you have to accept there was one major "cock-up"!!

DON MORRISON (chief European correspondent, Time): Let me hazard a generalization, however. Americans have long wanted to be liked by the rest of world and they're incredulous when people don't like them. Most Americans do not understand, fundamentally in their hearts, the motivation of a terrorist, whether he's from the Middle East of the Japanese Red Army, (chortles quietly) as someone on the wires has speculated, to try to do harm to a country that, they think, only wants to do good in this world. So as a result they cannot make a connection between America's policies -- in for instance the Middle East -- and terrorist acts on their own soil.
One other generalization. Americans have a tendency to personalize foreign policy, hence the rush to judgment that it was Osama bin Laden who was behind this. For all we know this is true, but we don't have the evidence yet.
BBC: Remember Oklahoma City.
MORRISON: Remember Oklahoma City, which was initially blamed on Osama bin Laden and other...other suspects. Um, so there is a tendency to view the world as individuals who are out to do us harm, not as movements, differing opinions, impersonal forces arrayed in opposition to what the United States stands for.
BBC: Now America desperately needs political leadership, doesn't it. Is George Bush the man for the moment?
MORRISON: You've put your finger on the dark heart of America's insecurity right now. You'll find very few Americans who will say this, but I think there's, uh, a bit of concern that we have a young -- or new and relatively untested novice president. Of course the same thing happened to John F. Kennedy when Berlin -- probably when, actually the Cuban missile crisis, his big test. You heard the same kinds of concerns expressed sotto voce. I think you'll start to hear those as well. Another concern is that Bush, who tends to be -- or rather who's administration tends to be unilateralist, they've been accused of being, um, uh, could overreact.
BBC: What does he need to do domestically. I mean, obviously they're going to try to find the perpetrators and punish them, and get them. How long, how patient will American opinion be for that?
MORRISON: His options in finding and punishing the perpetrators are limited. Um, uh, he has more options and perhaps a more pressing task right now in reassuring the American people, in restoring the confidence that's going to be lost as a result of this tragedy. This is a financial tragedy as well. A human tragedy. A blow to a self-confident -- uh, formerly self-confident nation's self-confidence already shaken by the recession.

"During this week on the Internet"
Yeah, and I was blocked from writing on Alex Jones' blog at the same time as it came out.
I had been exposing lies from the truth movement on his blog.
He needed a diversion, some breaking news to present on his blog:
http://9-11-was-an-inside-job.blogspot.com/2009/03/jewish-alex-jones-was-hysterical.html

you can also skip to where i think the controversial section is
"WTC bldng 7 == Salomen Brothers building" AFAIK
(per wiki (FWIW))
by clicking here:
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736?start=810
-tracey

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049

Global Research, April 3, 2009
Below is the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions of this important and carefully researched article
The complete article can be downloaded (pdf)
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25)
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
The Open Chemical Physics Journal
Volume 2
ISSN: 1874-4125
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Complete Article
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Global Research Editor's Note
The definition of thermitic material:
A trademark used for a welding and incendiary mixture of fine aluminum powder with a metallic oxide, usually iron, that when ignited yields an intense heat.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction. (Wikipedia)
What we are dealing with is the melting/ burning of metal structures.
“Metals are capable of burning under the right conditions, similarly to the combustion process of wood or gasoline. ... A thermite reaction is a process in which the correct mixture of metallic fuels are combined and ignited. Ignition itself requires extremely high temperatures.”
Readers can reach their own conclusions as to the far-reaching implications of these findings.
Although the authors do not address the broader issue of the 9/11 attacks, their findings have a direct bearing on the likely causes of the collapse of the WTC buildings on September 11, 2001. The findings also question the validity of the official report of the 911 Commission.
Below are selected excerpts of the article. Readers can also link to the complete text, by clicking the link
Complete Article
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
EXCERPTS
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:
1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.
5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.
(emphasis added)
Complete Article
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

You can easily explain why they fell?!?Two alluminum cans flew into a reinforced steel structure that was designed specifically to withstand multiple impacts from a large jet airliners. Let's be honest, we can only speculate as to how exactly happened, but if you're buying that bullshit, you need to get your head out of your ass and do some research. I find the offical story the "least" plausable, as even NIST says their finding are based on 0% physical evidence, as we shipped the steel to China and dumped the rest in the landfill "40%" of the casualties bodies and all. Read "A New American Century", Patriot Act(written before 9/11), HR645, NSPD-51, HR1955, Military Commissions Act, National Security Memorandum200. And after you've done that, research Pearl Harbor - WWII, Gulf of Tonkin Incident-Vietnam, Lusitania-WWI, or how about the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve** and how it works, or is designed to inevitably fail.

...

fj

I can easily debunk the whole "it wasn't the fires that did it" theory. It was the fires, but there were other factors. What other factors, you ask? Oh, how about the one that both planes slammed into the buildings at an average speed of 500 miles per hour. Most of the core got blasted away in the initial impact. So did the fireproofing on the walls, letting the fire get to the exposed steel. It was a tragedy, leave it be. That's all there is.

If you reject an argument because you don't like what you hear, you might try explaining what you don't like about the argument or statement. Then you may present an alternate view point. This is the difference between debates and insults.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21287614.shtml
There, now one conspiracy is debunked. Check out this "theorist"
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=621197
He had some interesting views on his website:
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/america_subversion_index.htm

ncdave wrote:
"It is interesting to me that the same people who have no trouble believing that Bush, Cheney, the CIA, the FBI, the BBC, bin Laden, the NYC Fire Department, the Jewish bankers, several teams of controlled demolition experts, every structural engineer in the world, and the entire American press corps all conspired together to kill 3000 people so that Larry Silverstein could commit insurance fraud, think it is IMPOSSIBLE that somebody somewhere could have falsified timestamps on a video recording."
N.I.S.T has changed their story about the collapses numerous times.Conspiracy nuts?The U.S. Governments theory is the conspiracy theory,not us so called nuts seeking the truth of what really happened on that day."
I guess Thermate just happened to be a naturally occuring phenomena at the crime scene.
Steven Earl Jones - a former professor of physics at Brigham Young University who conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy has very strong evidence that 911 was an inside job.
ncdave wrote:
"every structural engineer in the world"
What about KEVIN RYAN?
Who is Kevin Ryan?
An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.
In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."
Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.
Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.
Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.
911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.
The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the temperatures of fuel fires in the towers on September 11 appear to have been far too low to cause a failure of the structural steel.
A chemist by profession, Ryan said he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day.
ncdave wrote:
"the entire American press corps all conspired together to kill 3000 people so that Larry Silverstein could commit insurance fraud"
That sounds just like a quote from FOX news anchors.
OH wait!
The main stream news doesn't lie!
Get real you fool.
America is dying and you just refuse to believe it!

The conspiracy nuts apparently think reporter Jane Stanley is standing in front of a real window. She's not, of course, any more than David Letterman does his Late Show before a real window overlooking NYC. She's standing in front of a ChromaKey screen, showing previously recorded footage. It's the same technology that shows news clips behind news anchors, and giant weather maps behind weather reporters.
If you watch the clip, you'll see to the immediate left of the "window" behind the reporter is the edge of what appears to be another window. If that were a real window behind her, the image to the left of it would have to be another real window, showing the SAME skyline. But the window at the left shows an entirely different skyline, with different buidings, different lighting, and smoke drifting in a different direction.
Ergo, you aren't looking at real windows, you're looking at video.
Also, the BBC World News is widely rebroadcast here in the USA. I think it is safe to say that if they had actually announced the news of the collapse of 7 WTC half an hour before it happened, lots of people would have noticed back then. It wouldn't have taken 5 years to discover.
It is interesting to me that the same people who have no trouble believing that Bush, Cheney, the CIA, the FBI, the BBC, bin Laden, the NYC Fire Department, the Jewish bankers, several teams of controlled demolition experts, every structural engineer in the world, and the entire American press corps all conspired together to kill 3000 people so that Larry Silverstein could commit insurance fraud, think it is IMPOSSIBLE that somebody somewhere could have falsified timestamps on a video recording.
-Dave Burton
dave at burtonsys dot com

Once again, much ado about nothing...Consipracy nutjobs taking an error and turning it into a fullblown conspiracy. In this day and age where everything ends up becoming public, morons expect us to believe that the BBC was also 'in' on the whole WTC conspiracy? And what would the point of announcing a building collapse hours after the main attack be? To convince us of the reality of an event witnessed by thousands? Why would the report of the WTC7 collapse even be necessary? The 'conspirators' would have just made WTC7 fall, and let the press report it.
This is the dumbest crap I've ever heard. Couple it with all the explanations of all the consipracy theories about blowing the twin towers ALL ALREADY ANSWERED (eg see the popular Mechanics issue on this topic) and you will see there is nothing to this stuff.
If you want to look for conspiracies undealth with, here's some examples: Halliburton; the whole fiasco surrounding the war, George Tenet's claims that the 'slum dunk' statement was teken out of context totally (which would make Cheney and Bush war criminals if true), the death of over 650 THOUSAND iraqis in the war (20x greater than what we've been told), the fiasco surrounding the 1st Gulf war where a Washington PR firm was hired by the Kuwaitis to draw the US into the war (see Frontline documentary), Donald Rumsfeld meeeting with Saddam and the US later claiming it knew nothing of his plans to use chemical weapons of mass destruction even though they were sold to him (because he was an ally at that time).
There's no shortage of SERIOUS news that is not being dealt with, the implications of which are staggering and there are still morons with nothing better to do that follow these conspiracy theories, which may be fashionable around a water cooler at the office on Monday, but which is a waste of time and energy...
But I know that there will still be believers...so count me in as a co-conspirator if you want...

Christian - you're a fool.

Since we know now that the BBC directors and producers were in on it, then we can reverse-read all the fake suspicions that 'security analyst' spook and the announcer mentioned.
"Arab terrorists" is the classic Israeli propoganda stunt, and their spy-agency mafia also happens to be the nastiest, most notorious terror manipulators.
Of course archive.org will not publically take a position saying the Bush administration set-up 9/11 -- the Hewlett Foundation and all the other money-backers have to rub elbows with the perpetrators too often.
Too embarrassing to know that your bosses are psychopathic murderers, and then still get paid by them. Perhaps they are especially courageous, however. That's great, if true.
http://www.archive.org/details/AccuracyBasedPolitics/
Christian Pecaut
workoutwellforall@gmail.com

"Therefore, the time of BBC talking about the collapse happened before the time of the collapse..."
This means "the time of the BBC talking about the collapse" "HAPPENED" "BEFORE" "the time of the collapse". It is plain language.
They reported the collapse, before it happened.
I know you're having a problem accepting this George.
We all are, but it is true.

I am Director of Collections at the Internet Archive, responsible for all video and audio files.
This video clip is part of a collection from the TV Archive of global television coverage of the events that occurred on and shortly after September 11, 2001.
This clip, among others, has drawn quite a bit of attention because it appears to show a BBC reporter in New York reporting that World Trade Center Building 7, also referred to as WTC7 or the Salomon Brothers Building, has collapsed before it actually did collapse.
Despite some confusion on the issue of time code stamping and UTC conversions to EDT, the timing on the clip appears to be correct. This particular clip was recorded between 4:54 and 5:36 PM EDT. The anchor references to the WTC7 collapsing occur at 4:58 PM and 5:01 PM and then a live reporter says the building has collapsed at 5:08 PM in what appears to be a live shot with the building still in tact behind her. The feed from the live reporter is lost at 5:15 PM and then the building does actually collapse at 5:20 PM.
A subsequent clip from the BBC then shows coverage of the actual collapse in an archived account recorded from 5:36 – 6:16PM. This clip is available at http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111736-1818 .
An annotated version of the key sequence from this clip can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzxEoEfE_8A .
Further support for the correct timing on the clip comes from another archived clip, this one from the BBC 24 channel which includes a time stamp on the TV screen indicating that the reference to the collapses of WTC7 does occur before the actual collapse.
There is some discussion as to whether or not that time stamp was later edited in by someone tampering with the clip. It is unclear whether that happened or not but the reporting and the time of the reporting as shown does seem to coincide with the other BBC World report. This clip can be seen at various web sites including http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207timestamp.htm .
Also there has been some discussion about whether the shot of the WTC7 still standing was a live shot or a so-called “green screen” shot in which the live reporter was photographed in front of an electronic screen with a superimposed image of videotape of earlier coverage. That could explain the time disparity; however other clips seem to support the view that the video behind the BBC reporter in this clip is indeed live.
This clip is being widely circulated on the web along with other 9/11 news coverage clips that have surfaced. The earliest apparent reports of WTC7 collapsing come from CNN which reports before 5PM that WTC7 is either burning, is collapsing or has collapsed. You can see this clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD0UWq_ORR4 . That story then gets repeated later on BBC 24 and BBC World. Similar coverage on ABC can be found posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qyiov_c6Fg .
Assuming all the time references are correct, there are two possible explanations offered for the confusion. One is that the building was intentionally brought down by its owner and that a press release indicating that was prematurely issued and prematurely reported on by the media.
Another explanation is that there was simply confusion at the time and some journalistic “whispering down the lane” in which early stories that there was something happening at WTC7 led to rumors of its collapsing which then led to on-air reporting of its collapse. The fact that the WTC7 is still standing and visible in the background of the live shot appears to confirm that the reporting of the collapse did take place before the actual collapse.
One possible explanation for the apparent clairvoyance of the reporter, or the alleged deception by those in charge, is that there was a fire at WTC7 when it was first reported on CNN at approximately 4:10 PM and that the BBC then picked up that story from CNN and reported that the WTC7 might be collapsing and in the confusion of live news coverage that story then was communicated to the anchor and the reporter that the building had collapsed.
Additional information may be available from other television network coverage of that same period of time which has also been archived by the TV Archive. This includes coverage from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and CNN. Efforts are underway to gather that additional archive footage so that a more comprehensive picture can be presented of what really happened that day.
Other references and discussions related to this clip can be found at various other web sites including http://www.livelead.com , http://www.911truth.org , http://www.prisonplanet.com , http://www.informationliberation.com , http://www.911blogger.com , and http://www.digg.com .
The official BBC statement regarding its explanation for the mistaken reporting can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/27/index.html .
Added March 4, 2007 at 9:13 AM PST.
The BBC has now posted new information in an effort to explain the apparent errors in this report. It is available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html .

GW, here is your answer, posted elsewhere;
http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=107775
Two of the much discussed BBC are available again, but this time as streaming flash files.
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736
http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111736-1818
Based on the analysis of the time codes, the engineer involved is certain that the BBC was talking about the collapse before the building was reported to have collapsed on the www.911timeline.net site.
We hope to have other videos from this collection available soon.
-brewster
Digital Librarian

I read Brewster's comments in his review.
Is the official Internet Archive position that the BBC broadcast saying that WTC 7 has collapsed was actually broadcast AFTER that building in fact collapsed?
And if that is Internet Archive's position, I presume that does not apply to the BBC 24 video, as:
(1) that video, to my understanding, was never posted at Internet Archive; and
(2) that video contains a date stamp on the lower-left corner which appears to have been encoded by the BBC itself.
Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

[This is from an engineer responsible for capturing this production off-air on Sept 11, 2001. I am the founder and Digital Librarian of the Internet Archive. -brewster]
During this week on the Internet a Flash version of some video from 9/11/2001 was released which shows BBC World announcing that World Trade Center 7 (also known as the Salomon Brothers building) had collapsed. However, the announcement of the collapse was before it actually happened.
The Flash version contained added text showing the time, but the person that added the time got the time-zone wrong, indicating times in Eastern Standard Time and not Eastern Daylight Time as was the case on 9/11/2001. Needless to say, this caused much skepticism about the real time the video was recorded.
V08591-16.mpg runs from 20:54:47 through 21:36:28 UTC. The following events were observed in the video:

16:58:08 EDT comes the first mention of the collapse.
17:01:17 EDT the collapse is mentioned again.
17:08:48 EDT they cut to a live shot from NYC and talk about the collapse with a reporter (who has the WTC7 visible behind her!)
17:15:07 EDT there is a problem with the feed and BBC switches to some pre-recorded material and does a couple of interviews

The next file, V08591-20.mpg runs from 21:36:28 through 22:18:09 UTC. At 17:39:15 EDT, the BBC runs video actually showing the collapse which has already occurred at 17:20:33 EDT according to www.911timeline.net.
Therefore, the time of BBC talking about the collapse happened before the time of the collapse as reported by www.911timeline.net.